Kermit Gosnell and Roe v. Wade: Something Evil This Way Came

Yesterday it was reported that Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist, was arrested and charged with eight counts of murder. He was charged with the murder of babies who were fully delivered; he induced labor, delivered the babies and then stuck a scissors in the back of their necks and mercilessly killed them. Their first breath, was also their last. Lacking even the dignity of a human touch; no one holding their tiny, innocent hand coursing with life’s blood, as that life left their tiny bodies. Eyes opening, trying to focus for the first time and trustingly seek out the security of the face belonging to the voice they’d heard for many months inside the womb. Struggling to survive, as the will to live is strong, even in the most tiny and vulnerable.

He was not charged with the murders of babies he killed the same way – earning $1.8 million in one year alone for doing so – only inside the womb.

Gosnell’s abortion mill was a gruesome house of evil. When police searched Gosnell’s facilities, they found that “bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building. Jars containing the severed feet of babies lined a shelf.” This grotesque cretin kept severed feet as some sort of macabre serial killer trophy.

The State of Pennsylvania knew this. And ignored it. Allowing him to commit murder, time and time again, for decades. Their reasoning? Inspecting abortion mills clinics and requiring that they have basic safety standards would result in “putting up a barrier to women” and their ‘choice’. The ‘choice’ is never explicitly said because by choice they, of course, mean the purposeful killing of a baby. Barbara Boxer and even our own President would have believed the same. Barbara Boxer believes that a right to life does not exist until a mother ‘chooses’ to take her baby home, alive, from the hospital. President Obama, when a state senator in Illinois, had more concern for abortionists than for the babies whose lives they snuff out. He cared more about protecting the vile excuses for human beings like Kermit Gosnell than the babies they were attempting to kill. He believes that babies who are born alive during an abortion attempt should legally be left to die. As a Senator in Illinois, debating a Born Alive bill, he said this:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it— is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

Not just coming out limp and dead. Like the babies born in Gosnell’s facilities. Poor Gosnell would have too much of a burden, what with pesky babies not cooperating and insisting on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.

But even this total abdication by the Department of Health might not have been fatal.

Here they are wrong. That the abortion clinic existed at all, by definition means there were fatalities there. Likely thousands of them. That is the sole purpose of an abortion clinic. Already the pro-abortionist left like Amanda Marcotte, is trying to blame “anti-choicers” for “crappy abortionists“. She is, in effect, saying “Too bad a better ‘doctor’ didn’t kill the babies by stabbing in neck with scissors in a cleaner way.” If only he’d hidden the evidence, you see. So people weren’t forced into realizing that lives, not balls of cells, are snuffed out. She cares naught for actual safety. If she did, why would she have adamantly opposed Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s conclusion that state agencies in Virginia could legally regulate abortion clinics? Do you know why she, and other pro-abortionists objected? Because some clinics wouldn’t be able to afford meeting basic safety standards and would have to close down. See, they don’t give a hoot about safety. It’s all about blood money and a sickening agenda.

Furthermore, the difference between this gruesome killing machine and a “safe” clinic is aesthetics, really. There is no denying the horror of what was found in this “doctor’s” office. But it happens in every abortion clinic across the land. Sticking a scalpel in a baby’s neck in utero has the same result as sticking it in the neck with scissors outside the womb: Death.

In this case, people can visualize the actual babies, as they were horrifically kept in jars and bottles. In “safe” clinics, they are hidden away in haz-mat disposals or chopped up into tiny pieces before being sucked out of their mother’s womb and disposed of like trash. Hidden away, allowing people to blind themselves to what is actually happening. It is easier to remain blissfully ignorant and ignore the fact that a baby is a baby, in utero or out. It is easier to believe that a life taken inside the womb is somehow different than a life taken outside of one. It is easier to believe that ‘viability’ is a valid argument, otherwise one would have to come to the appalling realization that Roe v. Wade actually sanctions infanticide.

My eyes shot back to the screen again. The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone. And the uterus was empty. Totally empty.

The only difference is that some of the babies Gosnell killed took a first, and last, breath. Others never even get a first, and only, breath. Their lives are snuffed out inside what should be a safe harbor. Never having a chance to breathe, never feeling a single human and loving touch. Never having a chance to see the grace and beauty of life. Never feeling the sun warming the tops of their sweet-smelling heads. Never lifting their faces into the rain to catch drops on their cheeks and tongue. Never chortling with innocence and wonder. Never giggling in the way that children do; a way that touches you so deeply and fills you with joy to your very core. Never growing up to fall in love, to marry and to have children of their own.

This is the slippery slope of Roe v. Wade and the evil it has wrought. Fifty million babies have been killed since it became law. Babies are killed every hour of every day, only more often with a vacuum or a D&C than with scissors, which makes it easier for people to choose to believe the ‘ball of cells’ lie. What happened in Gosnell’s office should hit home as an atrocity, even to people who purport to be pro-choice. To some people, being pro-choice really means they are making the choice to believe the ‘ball of cells’ or non-viable lies, because they want to be enlightened and For The Women. Because, empowerment. Feminists even seek to celebrate abortion as something that gives them their twisted idea of equality. But it is not enlightened nor high-minded; it, like Roe v. Wade, is condoning, for whatever reason, the killing of innocent life.

My rights as a woman are not predicated on a legal ability to kill my own children. To suggest otherwise does not empower women. To the contrary; it degrades and demeans women and all of society. Our hands are stained with the blood of the 50 million lives lost and we must put an end to the lie that it is a Women’s Rights issue. The pro-abortionist Left has odiously, yet effectively, made that the issue. It’s not. The issue is that we are sanctioning infanticide and it must end.

Their voices, 50 million voices, were silenced. The screams of those innocent babies are unheard. Ours cannot be.

This whole situation makes me want to cry. All I can think about is when my sons were born and were placed in my arms for that first time… they both looked me right in the eyes. They were so aware. And both played games while still in my womb, for months before they were born. They danced, they stretched their arms and lets, they turned and swam and poked back when I poked at them through my belly.

How any woman can experience that play, or even feel any movement, and not know that is a living child baffles the mind.

This guy should fry for what he did. He’s an absolute monster. His assistants should fry, too. I just can’t understand how anyone would knowingly do the things they’ve helped him do… how anyone would work in a place with babies in jars and baby parts strewn about. It’s nauseating to think about.

After reading this post I feel the need to take a shower. I wonder how many people associate the state of our nation today with the atrocity that is “abortion on demand”? However payback is coming and you know what they say about payback.

Uh, there was, genius, they turned a blind eye to it. Besides, it’s not a business, right? He was performing a public service in keeping with our Constitutional right to have consequence-free sex.
How else can the left fight for the down-trodden unless we take care of the immigrant/negroe problem in our inner-cities? (That’s sarcasm, by the way, don’t go screamin’ rraaaciiist!)

Abortion is a business, Einstein. It’s actually an industry according to most anti-abortion folks. Just ask them. Regulators turn a blind eye to abortion providers the same way that they do the mining industry, the deep water oil drilling industry, and lots more. This negligence often results in the death of viable human beings. It’s just business as usual.

I would think that you, of all people, would oppose government intervention and regulation of any industry. It was you who in the last thread called our president “An incompetent, regulation-happy buffoon of a door-mat for China and the UN…” And it was you who ranted about “letting business and the marketplace amend itself despite the economic problems CAUSED by over-bearing, meddlesome government.”

Is the abortion industry the one exception to your free market principles, ant?

By the way, your joke about our “Constitutional right to have consequence-free sex” is ridiculous on it’s face. If a woman gets pregnant, there is no choice that she can make that doesn’t hold consequences.

You really want to know my opinion? You will, no doubt, misinterpret this as well but what the hell.
In my opinion the whole thing must be reconsidered, abortions are not “safe,legal,and rare” as was the prediction back then. Whether they are regulated or not is not the issue for me, because, in my opinion, the termination of human life should not be considered a “business”. Do-you-understand-the-words-that-I-am-typing?

Figured you would catch on to sarcasm. You didn’t. According to the femiogynists it is consequence free sex because abortion is not, in their policy, a consequence, merely a hassle, like blowing your nose or having a wart removed.

I said nowhere that pregnancy is merely a hassle. I’m saying pro-choice feminists consider abortion nothing more than an out-patient procedure to remove a parasite, just a hassle, as far as they’re concerned, with no negative consequences.

I have no idea why you would think that I’m attributing a pro-choice view to you. But I’m willing to try this again, and hopefully you won’t be able to misinterpret me this time.

If women who have abortions consider completing a pregnancy to be “merely a hassle,” then why do they choose to abort and (allegedly) risk post-abortion syndrome, which would presumably be more than a hassle?

If your answer is, “They don’t don’t believe that post-abortion syndrome exists,” then you are conveniently underestimating the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine.

I’m still looking for the part where I called “completing a pregnancy” a hassle. BTW, that’s a good joke about the reach and effectiveness of the pro-life propaganda machine. I guess that explains why so many networks ran that March For Life story. Oh, wait a minute…they didn’t.
BTW, people can “complete” a book report, a pregnancy will complete itself without any effort from another, excepting medical procedures.

By the way, if you want to see what seven actual pro-choicers think about aborting viable fetuses, go to http://www.slate.com/id/2282756/. To summarize: four say it’s permissible, three (including the author) say it’s not.

While Lori seems overly in touch with her feminine side, I don’t see much in the way of errors. If you look up late term abortion procedures, they all include a step where the fetus is killed. If the medical community didn’t feel a fetus was a life differing from the mothers, there would be no point to include such a step.

As for Obama, his words as a state senator were pretty clear. Better to kill a baby due to a botch abortion than to risk any form of abortion restrictions. This is a man that during the 2008 campaign wouldn’t agree that birth gave a baby human rights.

A massive study from Denmark published in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that women who have abortions are not at any risk to their mental health. Having a baby, though? It nearly doubles the rate at which women sought mental health treatment. There’s two ways to view this: first, that the image of the weeping, regretful woman who got an abortion is a lie; and, second, that more needs to be done for women suffering from post-partum depression.

Denmark, by the way, has far more liberal abortion laws and a lower abortion rate than the United States, 13 per 1000 pregnancies in Denmary, 20 per 1000 in the United States. It would not be a stretch to say that universal health care makes it easier for women to have children and lowers the abortion rate by over 25%, a more significant number than any restriction has accomplished in the United States. It seems fairly simple: if you truly believe in the right to life, then you believe that the living, not just the potentially living, need to be taken care of. If your goal is to stop abortions and not just control women, you’d have to support universal health care.

But that kind of logic and compassion does not extend to our right-wing friends. It is far, far easier to restrict the procedure. It is far, far easier to hope for the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is far, far easier to carve their religious beliefs into the bodies of American women.

Denmark isn’t a good model to choose from. It’s only 5.5 million people and has a declining growth rate. It is proactive in birth prevention and its health system is designed with high enough co pays and access controls to dissuade people from using the system. Also, because of the ethnic/religious makeup of the population, mental health can’t be compared directly with the US.

American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize Post Abortion Syndrome as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that “severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses.” The APA revised and updated its findings in August 2008 to account for the accumulation of new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first, unplanned pregnancy did not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems.

In 2008, a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women, and determined: “The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not.”

A study of 13,000 women, conducted in Britain over 11 years, compared those who chose to end an unwanted pregnancy with those who chose to give birth, controlling for psychological history, age, marital status and education level. In 1995, the researchers reported their results: equivalent rates of psychological disorders among the two groups.

In testimony before the United States Congress, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, an evangelical Christian and abortion opponent, stated that “There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material.” In his congressional testimony, Koop stated that while psychological responses to abortion may be “overwhelming” in individual cases, the risk of significant psychological problems was “miniscule from a public health perspective.”

Nancy Adler, a professor of medical psychology, conducted a review of methodologically sound studies of women’s mental health before and after abortion. She concluded that up to 10 percent of women have symptoms of depression or other psychological distress after an abortion, the same rates experienced by women after childbirth.

I like Denmark. Got friends from there and Finland. I’m not fond of using them to make straw man arguments.

I didn’t contest your point, just you data source. OK, your point on mental health. It’s an over rated claim. You’re universal health care point to total bunk. The WHO continually rates the US highest in quality, choice and access to medical care. They just play with the numbers to make the US look bad.

But don’t put to much faith in Medical Journals. They’re as much about politics as medicine.

So, what you’re saying is that I should put my faith in what you say instead of empirical data?

Right.

I notice that you’re not providing sources to any data at all that disproves anything that I’ve posted. I’d imagine that there must be reams of empirical data proving beyond a doubt that the points I’ve made about abortion and mental health are “over rated.”

Please, show us all how wrong I am, and try using something other than your own opinion this time.

My universal health care point is common sense, not “total bunk.” If women have guaranteed health care before and after pregnancy, it stands to reason that more women would carry their pregnancies to term.

Since you seem to have “faith” in what the WHO says, here’s a quote from Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization:

“A commitment to universal coverage means, in practical terms, that all people within a country should receive some degree of financial protection from the costs of basic health services. This means, in ethical terms, that no one in need of health care, whether curative or preventive, should risk financial ruin as a result of having to pay for care.”

“Access to basic health care is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, as stated in the WHO Constitution, and not just a privilege to be enjoyed in a few wealthy societies. But this right hardly matches the reality. In many countries, the rich receive all the health care they need, while the poor are left to fend for themselves.”

I haven’t contested your point on mental health. It’s the pro-life crowd making an over rated claim. You should put your faith in empirical data, but just remember most of it goes through a political filter to skew the data.

I’m sure the WHO has a nice shinny brochure about their constitution. Of course the easiest way to reduce the risk of financial ruin as a result of having to pay for care is to reduce health care which the WHO seems to embrace. At least for the little people. The ruling class has their own rules. This couldn’t be better demonstrated than by the Castro brothers banning Moore’s Sicko to prevent the people of Cuba from seeing the health care the elites get.

It would be easy to maintain the US’s current level of care and prevent financial ruin by pooling people under regulated catastrophic insurance plans and then using free market systems to keep the costs down under the catastrophic insurance threshold.

However, our leaders don’t believe in freedom and have made many of the insurance plans people want illegal. They do this not to help people, but because they are desperate to get their hands on the peoples money.

“None of us can force our personal brand of “morality” and “right and wrong” on other individuals” except when your personal brand of morality means “[n]one of us can force our personal brand of ‘morality’ and ‘right and wrong’ on other[s].” Similarly, Catholics are not free thinking and you, Michael, are perfectly free thinking in so far as you preclude Catholics from you club house.

The abortion debate will not go away – Scalia’s dissent in “Casey” foretold this problem. Like other social issues, there will be no rest. What we have here, between me and you two (Michael and Debrah), is a conflict of vision. You cling to ideology, world view, and, perhaps, comfortable no-conviction agnosticism (loosely defined) while I keep rooted in a constantly evolving but doctrinally consistent 2000 year old ( some would say archaic) faith started by Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.

The social contract (i.e. Rousseau) is unraveling at the seams. Some issues used to be left to states. Or, rather, sometimes people could just forge into the wilderness and find a place where they could live as they wish to live. We cannot get aboard the Mayflower and we cannot take wagons west. We are in trouble. You can cling to your self- perceptions as superior intellectual beings, free thinking people, enlightened folk (otherwise known as myself just a few years ago). But when push comes to shove, and believe me the pushers are coming to shove just as the shoved are preparing to shove back, nobody will be happy with the outcome. Read the last paragraph of the “Manhattan Declaration” (I thinks it is the last paragraph) and you will get a taste of what I mean. Do you think Catholicism/Christianity “in power” is a problem? Tee hee! Just wait until Catholicism is “out of power.”

My academic program is rigorous and I probably will not have time to respond. Heck, I barely had time to post. So, sorry to hit and run but I could not pass up a chance to post. What a way to spend my free time, scribbling on the walls of the 21st century bathroom stall. Love you both. I hope we can carry on. I hope we can all carry on.

Nah, Murder and explosives have done wonders for Muslim PR here in the press, where up is down and everything, even an attack on a journalist by Muslim thugs, is the fault of conservatives. So if you kill an abortion doctor while yelling, “Allahu Akbar!” it will be spun as democracy or the result of a bad eceonomy.

You Know You Want To RSS Me!

Vote and stuff

Subscribe to Me! You know, via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 267 other followers

Snark. And Boobs!

Exposing Asshattery in Washington, DC (and elsewhere if it makes me froth at the mouth), from a dame’s point of view. Hence, the snark and boobs. Probably should have said nag and boobs, but snark has a better ring to it. Contact info: Snarkandboobs@gmail.com

Stimulate Me!

Minds out of the gutter! Not THAT way. The Stimulus Package way. Oh .. that sounds just as bad. Oh, well.